Oakland jury rejects Musk's $134 billion case against OpenAI on statute of limitations
A nine-person jury in federal court in Oakland rejected Elon Musk's claims against OpenAI, CEO Sam Altman, and President Greg Brockman after less than two hours of deliberation on Monday. The jury found that Musk had filed his breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment claims too late, barring them under the statute of limitations.
The decision came after 11 days of testimony from more than 20 witnesses and hundreds of exhibits. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who presided over the trial that began April 27, immediately accepted the advisory jury's verdict.
Musk's claims against Microsoft for aiding and abetting also failed because they depended on the charitable trust claim. The case will not proceed to a damages phase.
The substance never reached the jury
Steven Molo, Musk's lead lawyer, called the decision "technical." Because the jury dismissed the case on statute of limitations grounds, it never evaluated whether OpenAI actually breached a charitable trust or was unjustly enriched-the core disputes in the trial.
Molo said he respects the jury's decision but believes there are strong grounds for appeal. He expects to ask the court for permission to appeal without waiting for resolution of other claims and counterclaims that were not accelerated for trial.
William Savitt, OpenAI's lead lawyer, said his clients were satisfied with the decision, though he acknowledged it did not resolve whether OpenAI remained true to its mission. Savitt characterized the case as the work of a competitor who did not get his way.
Court observers find the ending anticlimactic
Many court-watchers found it ironic that the jury decided the least substantive issue: whether Musk waited too long to sue. The trial was supposed to examine whether OpenAI's leaders violated their fiduciary duties to a nonprofit organization.
James Rubinowitz, who teaches AI litigation at Cardozo School of Law, summed up the outcome: "The whole thing ended on a calendar. Not on whether Sam Altman stole a charity. Not on whether OpenAI breached its mission. The jury never reached a single question this trial was supposed to answer."
Ironies layered throughout the case
Musk, the world's richest person, criticized OpenAI's leaders for obtaining massive personal benefits from AI technology. Yet in 2025, Musk assembled a consortium of for-profit investors attempting to buy OpenAI's nonprofit assets for $97 billion. He now develops artificial general intelligence through SpaceX, a for-profit company he controls-not through a nonprofit as he once argued was necessary.
At trial, Musk testified that AGI must be developed safely. He later called a young OpenAI safety researcher a "jackass" at an all-hands meeting for cautioning that an AGI race could be unsafe.
Greg Brockman testified that OpenAI's mission was his top priority while writing journal notes about obtaining a billion dollars for himself. Sam Altman, fired in 2024 for not being "consistently candid" with the board, now chairs both the nonprofit board and the for-profit subsidiary board.
The trial also highlighted a contrast: federal judges, law clerks, marshals, and jurors worked with intensity for modest or no additional compensation. They pursued their mission of delivering justice. Meanwhile, Silicon Valley billionaires and millionaires debated compensation structures and equity stakes.
AI systems offer a resolution the founders couldn't reach
Bay City News conducted an experiment with ChatGPT and Grok, the AI systems developed by OpenAI and Musk's company x.AI respectively. Researchers gave both systems jury instructions, verdict forms, and 30 news stories about the lawsuit.
When asked to fill out the verdict form, ChatGPT ruled in Musk's favor, finding breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment. Grok ruled against Musk on all counts. The irony: ChatGPT sided with Musk, while Musk's own Grok sided with OpenAI.
When asked to propose the best resolution, both AI systems converged. ChatGPT recommended governance reforms making OpenAI's public-benefit obligations "not just aspirational but operational," with independent oversight and transparency.
Grok proposed a "negotiated settlement" that validates the original safety intent without bankrupting OpenAI or handing victory to any faction. It called for "messy pluralism: rival labs racing and cooperating on standards, backed by transparent evaluation and external checks."
When Grok was asked about ChatGPT's proposal, it said: "I strongly agree with this approach. This is exactly the kind of pragmatic, institution-focused outcome the field needs."
ChatGPT found Grok's framework "sophisticated and largely persuasive," recognizing that the central risk is not winning a lawsuit but preserving accountability, competition, and safety simultaneously.
The greatest irony may be that the advanced intelligences created by these feuding founders found more agreement with each other than the founders themselves.
Your membership also unlocks:
